I think the 3 fundamentals should be linked when moving positions

The cumulative points total should remain the same. For instance if you gain a point of speed and/or acceleration you should lose an equal amount for strength.

If you gain a point of strength you should lose a point of speed or half a point of speed and half a point of acceleration

And a succession of injuries should impact Speed/Acceleration and Strength.

You wont see a numerical change in strength but i would say the heavier guy is stronger as weight is applied in calculations .....250 pound oline will blow blocks...often...

The guy losing weight...say its 70 pounds will get considerably faster,but the problem lies in speed penalties applied to weight in the first place. My 40 speed LG runs a full second slower than he should in his 40 yard dash....where my dbs are only slower by half second off nfls talent pools scores.

We have a 250 DT and a 220 DE...they are doing ok, but our run defense is not that good. We play alot of zone and blitz around 30% of the time. If we manned up and blitzed more we have a strong run defense no matter the size of our guys but i bet we let up alot of longer passes.

And to touch on injuries we seem to have less by playing players at more suitable weights. WRs at TE or FB seem to get beat up in our balanced attack scheme. Defensively , That DT and DE do get hurt at higher rates .

Still i would like to see big strong guys do some pancakes or really push smaller guys out of the way....not just get injured more often. Blocking is a bit static

If your injured alot and carry one in to next years camp a reduction of speed and acceleration is possible and serious injuries do affect retirement. I dont know if strength act the same though.

IIRC, there is supposed to be a reduction in strength.

It seems to me that the game engine is encouraging team owners to convert players to WR and CB as the downside doesn't outweigh the upside. There is (my opinion) a clear imbalance in the importance of speed and to a lesser extent acceleration over technique attributes.

If that is how you want the game to play then you have to put in either minimum roster spots by position e.g. 2*QB, 2*RB, 1*FB, 1*TE etc OR, maximum numbers by position e.g. 4*QB, 4*RB, 2*FB, 4*TE etc.

Another possibility is to introduce "hybrid" players e.g. "Scatback": generally a pass catching RB who can run the ball. "Possession" receiver: A large physical TE/WR who can use his strength and route running to box out a defender. An "Edge Rusher" a DE/LB crossover used primarily in passing situations.

Perhaps the depth chart should have a finite number of slots for depth at each position e.g. QB*3, RB*3, HB*3, FB*3, TE*3 - Scope here to have slots for pass catching TE and blocking TE, Separate WR list to Split End, Flanker, Slot, wr4, we5 with 3 options and at each .

On D the positions could be RDE, RDT, NT, LDT, LDE, ROLB, RILB, MLB, LILB, LOLB, CB1, CB2, SS, FS, CB3, CB4, CB5. Allowing you to play players in the desired positions more often.


Players that don't play or train in a position should lose it as an option to convert to after a while as well. Too many players are listed with 10+ possible positions (it's too many)

So, four wins in a row. New Orleans next, who should run rings around us as Ray has always destroyed my Defense's when we played in Legends.

I would say the main difference so far has been the amount of runs that are stuffed in the backfield, as the weight continues to reduce, these guys should be getting pushed backwards more and more often.

A few more injuries this week, mainly at LB - makes sense as they are (generally) making the most tackles. The RB group are also picking up some injuries, but again they are the players taking/giving the most hits.

Our record might be a bit inflated, but we will see. It will be nice to face a bunch of out of position players...to see what happens. We have bumped up our starting TEs weight 50 pounds to get better blocking, but hes underperforming in the pass game.

Defensively we got to see your gameplan, in snap shot, with the scout plays tool. You are running plenty of zone blitzes...that suprised me a bit. We run well enough, but an average DT stuffed the run vs. us last game(our C had 40 run block).

Our 250 DT had an ok game, but Tampa OTs are great and they ran outside a bit to there strength really controlling the clock( and the turnover battle). Our pass D has allowed a handful of 40+ yards passes in the last 20 games, so thats kinda our scheme, but it weak vs. the run.

This is where the zone blitzes can help a smaller team, with hopes the speedier defender will just beat the offense to the spot of a key block or the Rbs angle of attack.

Either way theres a ton of tackle for losses going on....or a 5 to 9 yard run. Not many big runs if your not abusing blitzes in man but run and pass blocking are producing odd results. Not to different from 4.5 but the version here is plenty different. So, the results are to ...just with a slight modification to zone Ai plans are even better.

Anyways i will pay close attention, but your guys will lose most of thier weight by eight to 12 games....its those real light weights that get that acceleration boost...not to say acceleration isn't more valueable cause in this engine it is

Our lightweight D line got their comeuppance this week against LAA. They still made plays and stuffed plenty of runs but when LAA got the blocking right we were horribly gashed.

Good game, should be a good one for the stats guru's to mull over. Offense fared pretty well but some fumbles proved costly at a critical stage of the game. Slightly surprisingly, we are getting better running the ball but worse at passing - the importance of blocking perhaps? or perhaps just a very good LAA D.

https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/watch/11604#2164102

this probably redundant on my part but...

I like using plays like this to measure 40 times and my opponents KRer had 62 speed at 198 pounds and ran like a 5.6 sec. 40 yard dash at the end of the return and my 228 pound defender with 88 speed was clocked at 4.8 or so.

Speed makes a difference but the times recorded puts the wr in the class of nfl olinemen and the defender(who is a DE) right on par with nfl DEs ,but hes 50 pounds too light.

Shrinking guys down makes them move more like the nfls....great for almost every position as the physics are more aligned to the nfls. You can get elite speed players or make them smaller and achieve these 40 yrd dash ranges thus creating a small feild of play level enough to sustain "good" stats.

but when larger mismatches of speed occur the stats have larger discrepancies from the nfls..and you see the lapses or in balances in a weak area of the code installed to make up for these huge speed differences

Not that this guy didn't deserve a td but IDK the last time i saw a 5.6 40 yard dash player take a KR back to the house....but i probably had a few slower players on the KO team....still run blocks are held way too long


The first step would be to dial speed way up by penalizing less for the weight of a player, then as an example here, blocks could have more movement and or engaging/disengaging by the run blockers

The first step has always been redistributing speed so that the degree between positions is realistic. Why does this game have kick returners that are slower than nose tackles?

Using your 40 times analogy: Every WR should be faster than 4.6, and every DL should be slower than 4.8. This is just a rough estimate, but it would mean every DL would have a speed range of 40-65, and every WR would be 80 or greater.